MaggieL - you have provided not one single fact to support your anti-American contention that international preemptive surprise attacks are acceptable. That same anti-American, warmonging thinking about VietNam should have cured America. You do remember VietNam - and why the Pentagon Papers demonstrated how much government lied - because government feared a threat that never did exist.

VietNam alone demonstrates lies of based upon unjustified fears. Unjustified fears are why this administration calls for preemptive attacks.

There is no name calling. Those who previously used your same thinking are listed. This bothers you? Are you upset that your same logic was also used by Curtis LeMay and Tojo? So instead of providing logic in response, you outrightly insult me or try to claim you are a victim of specious analogy? Four long posts demonstrate that you and Curtis LeMay have the same dangerous thoughts. Both, in defense, responded that they were comfortable with their positions. You should be feeling very uncomfortable since you have not provided a single reason, logical response, or historical example to support your comfortable position.

All you need do, for a start, is demonstrate where in history your mindset is not dangerous. You don't even do that. So again, instead, you cry the victim's claim of name calling and use the word 'rant' for waves of reasons and historical examples. That mindset is dangerous and anti-American; as demonstated by facts and historical example. Unfortunately, this same mindset exists in the current administration, which is why these posts, reasons, and lessons of history are so important.

Those who love war would advocate a surprise attack on the axis of evil - Iraq, Iran, or North Korea. Neither you nor the administration can justify why any of those countries should be surprise attacked. You provide no support for your thoughts but then insult anothers who challenge your thinking? Insults are irrelevant. No supporting facts for advocating preemptive militarty attacks, when that contention is so danagerous, is simply unforgiveable. Stick to points of international discussion and stop with insults and personal victim claims. The latter are irrelevant to a dangerous proposal and mindset that surprise attacks are acceptable.

No, I don't *need* to do anything.

It's to the point where I have to look very carefully at the posting date to know if you've actually written anything different, or if II'm reading an old post over again.

I think Tobiasty said it best when sie referred to confusing opinions with facts. "Four long posts demonstrate" exactly nothing but a willingness to type into a tiny text field for a very long time.

Now, one final time:

Point the first:
A preemptive strike is not necessarily a surprise attack.

Point the second:
When there' s been long escalating warnings and statements that a given situation is unacceptable, and that the ultimate recourse will be to the use of miltary force, an attack can't can't possibly be a surprise.

Point the third:
I don't give a rat's fuzzy behind whether you think my views on this topic are "a dangerous extremist unamerican mindset", mainly because you've become famous for labelling *anybody* you disagree with as "dangerous extremists".

That's a practice I find kind of...well...extreme. :-)

Now that you've walked around in circles four times, I'm done with this thread., See you elsewhere.

I think i lost this thread somewhere. I see the validity in sycs point, an armed society can be a safe one, but why does it have to be armed?
Because the bad guys are armed.
Ok, fine, why are the bad guys armed?
Because its not hard to get arms, they're good for threatening people with.
Why is it easy to get arms?
Becase lots of people list to jump up and down and scream about outdated constitutional rights.

That flamebait aside, i still think an unarmed safe society is better than an armed safe society. I think the constitutional stuff is in many senses outdated, a milita? I don't think so anymore. Why own a gun if not for safety?
I'm not trying to argue now, just discussion.

Sigh.

No. It is easy to get arms because we don't live on a big fucking island. We have borders. And those borders are guarded by humans. Humans make mistakes or are paid off. Guns will get past.

That's part of the way of it when living in a free society. We just have to take the bad with the good.

This thread is tired. Let it die.

Look, it's not hard to get arms--be they guns, knives, bludgeons, whatever--regardless of what laws are passed. The laws are only good for adding a charge to somebody's indictment after he's been arrested. Someone who intends criminal violence will always be able to find tools to do the job. Disarmament laws only disarm the law-abiding.

That's the saddest expression I've ever heard:"outdated constitutional rights". My constitutional rights are not outdated, sorry to hear about yours.
"Unarmed safe society" completely begs the question of whether an unarmed society is safe.
Read the Hatch committee study I cited earlier on our Second Amendment for a proper understanding of the word "militia" in the time in which it was written. Further, "well-regulated" in those days referred to a rifle being sighted in and accurate, and its user practiiced in its use.

Gun laws != lower violent crime. Though I can't show you the statistics, take a look a couple of years back when Australia outlawed guns. Violent crime (especially home invasion) went through the roof). So there. :beer:

I was reading a book/article/talking to someone a while back and we came up with a great idea. Outlaw all guns. But, make everybody carry around some sort of large edged weapon. Lets face it, are you gonna mug someone with a broadsword?

Headsplice, you've been reading too much NRA propaganda. They came here after thsoe laws were passed and made a series of absolute bullshit ads about exactly that, and guess what. It was bullshit. People here were up in arms about it. The only people who have bitched about the gun laws ehre are farmers, which is vaguely understandable. If you're going ot try and comment on our gun laws, at least get it right, guns have not been outlawed, just tighter control over access and type.

I really don't see why.

Could you repost this hatch report link, i couldn't find it on this thread. The way i read a 'well regulated milita' - as it sounds did mean it sounded outdated, the US govt is not about to be overthrow by a citizens milita of any strength, such a purpose is hense invalidated.

We live on an island so fucking big we cannot control its borders, yet i'm yet to see or hear of many guns on the streets, despite the use of these open shores for drug running.

Here you vaguely have a point, we have more stabbings here for a reason but at the same time....If you have effective law enforcement you don't need to carry to be safe.

I don't know why i get into these debates about gun control so much. Partially because i live in a country without guns, that to my mind concequentially doensn't have many killing and partly becase of the way ordinary peopel react to situations, which often isn't very good, and if they have a gun, that can be very bad, you simply can't garantee that all people who have guns are stable or well trained, i just see it as an unnessacary risk i guess.

It's a by-product of the development of culture. For that matter, why the hell do we really need nuclear weapons? But once something new is developed, it would be foolish to "dumb" ourselves down. Arms are here to stay, so you utilize them as best as possible. The US has discovered, over the course of 226 years, that the right to bear arms has been a pretty good idea overall.

I think today we look at the term "arms" too narrowly...when one thinks of arms, generally one either thinks of guns or nuclear weapons. But in a sense, we're all armed...be it our fists, knives, keys, sticks, etc.

Because they are criminals, and they'll do anything they can to get over on you. Having a weapon just makes them that much worse. But the average citizen can have a weapon too, so there's an equalizing factor. Get rid of the weapons, and you're still going to have criminals. They'll beat you with their bare hands if need be.

To make it easier to live off the land. You like to kill and prepare your own meat. A crossbow is alright, but a rifle would probably make it easier. Convenience is a good thing.

To quote the Dead Kennedys' album title, "Give Me Convenience or Give Me Death!" ;)

Some stats.

From national data
AUS 2001 (Aus. Bureau of Statistics)
US 2000 (FBI data)

PER 100,000:

Homicide...
AUS 5.4 US: data not broken out

(of that, Murder+Manslaughter... AUS: 1.8 US: 5.5)

Assault...
AUS: 782.9 US: 323.6

Sexual Assault...
AUS: 86.4 US: 32.0

Kidnapping...
AUS: 3.9 US: data not broken out

Robbery...
AUS: 137.1 US: 144.9

Unlawful Entry w/Intent... (headsplice's category)
AUS: 2246.9 US: 728.4

Car theft...
AUS: 722.0 US: 414.2

Other theft...
AUS: 3607.5 US: 2475.3

From the highly-regarded International Crime Victims Survey 2000

Percentage of people victimized by crime in 2000, EXCEPT death-related...
AUS: 30.0 US: 21.1

Number of crimes per 100 in 2000, EXCEPT death-related...
AUS: 54.3 US: 39.5

% crimes reported to police in 2000...
AUS: 50 US: 52
(suggesting that the "from national data" is reasonable to compare)

ICVS PERCEPTIONS about crime 2000

Perception of chance of burglary next year...
AUS: 11% very likely, 32% likely, 50% not likely
US: 3% very likely, 13% likely, 78% not likely

Do you feel safe walking alone at night?...
AUS: 24% very safe, 40% fairly safe, 21% bit unsafe, 14% very unsafe
US: 46% very safe, 36% fairly safe, 10% bit unsafe, 4% very unsafe

And more! A table of what was used to murder in AUS:

http://cellar.org/2002/ausmurder.gif

Obvious conclusion: the 1996 law cut down on murder by guns by quite a bit, but unfortunately other methods picked up the slack.

gun CONTROL
 

"Gun control is hitting the bull six times in a row with a .357"
-someone in the NRA, I'm sure.
Not really the point I'm going to make, but, I like the quotation.
Jaguar: You're completely right, I did fall for it, but, in my defence, it was the only data I saw.

More generally, isn't the problem with gun use/abuse (a very important distinction) similar to that of drugs? There are people who use drugs (including caffeine) in a moderately responsible fashion (i.e., they do no harm except to themselves). Is the same not true of guns? I neither plan nor want to ever harm anyone with a firearm. Ever. That are vastly destructive, both physically and emotionally. But, who is anyone else to say that I am not responsible enough to make that decision on my own? I am an adult and I take responsibility for my actions. I don't give a rat's ass what anyone else has ever done. Why do you (in general) want to take away my choices? What have I ever done to you. The actions of others are not relevant. You can show me all the statistics in the world, but they don't have doodie to do with what I have done. The actions of those who have abused their privileges is an entirely different matter. How can you take away my rights (at least, as a USian) based on the (mis)behavior of people with whom I neither associate nor want to be associated?
Something else to think about:
It is impossible to eliminate weapons entirely. Government would never stand for its own disarmament. Therefore, do we have any ultimate recourse to prevent flagrant violent abuses (of us) by said governments? Further, how do you prevent (especially military, in the case of a disarmed populace) weapons from getting into the hands of criminals?

Nothing vague about the point, actually. And law enforcement can only clean up *after* the fact; they don't prevent crime and that's not their job. I say again: look in the mirror. You are looking at the person responsible for your safety.
Actually, I don't think you do "live in a country without guns" (and Tony's numbers bear that out).

In fact, you live in a country where the *citizens* are disarmed. But then, as you say below, you're afraid of the "ordinary people", so you say you feel better when they're disarmed. I think that's misguided.
That's really tragic. You can't guarantee everybody who has a gun (or a car....or an airplane...or just about anything) legally is stable. But you'll take the right of self-defense away from the law-abiding, leaving superior force in the hands of criminals.

Natually, all the criminals are stable and well-trained. :-) All things considered, I'd rather trust the approximately 3% of the people who respect and trust themselves enough to touch all the legal bases needed to legally arm themseleves, I think they're vastly more trustworthy than the criminals.

I know a number of people who carry. (Mostly they don't let on that they're armed citizens until they know they're among folks that are shooters themselves, because of fearful reactions from folks like yourself who really don't know much about guns.) And I continue to be impressed with them as a group; compared to the general population they are careful, thoughtful and responsible.

That report I spoke of (and it was in another topic where we had this debate) can be read at

http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt.html

There is also <i>Historical Bases of the Right To Keep and Bear Arms</i> by David T. Hardy, available at

http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senhardy.html

Well, where to start. They went there for GUNS! The store also sells them, they also keep them in unlocked cases. They were guns that aren't legal in this state, the added power of which was enough to pierce most body armor. These guys wouldn't have had a chance were they not armed with assualt rifles, a kind of gun that has NO legitimate purpose for law abiding citizens.

As for the music I don't think the factory speakers in a Ford Tempo are really going to rattle too many windows, thanks for assuming I had the money for a system.

So posted was nothing except point one which is a question as to whether one can preemptively attack another nation, in direct violation of international law, and not do it by surprise attack. Point one is a debateable point.

However demonstrated is the reasoning behind this president's need to unilaterally attack other nations. No reasons need be provided. Just fears. When confronted, you don't give a rat's ass - which is probably George Jr's same thoughts. That pretty much defines why the US must attack Iraq. The administration doesn't give a rat's ass whether it is right or wrong or even in the interest of America. We have emotional feelings - in this case fear. That emotion is enough to justify an attack on Iraq, Iran, and N Korea. No facts historical or logical required to justify a unilateral attack on other soveriegn nations - principles of international law be damned. But then I only repeat the same points because they remain unchallenged and ignored.

Re: gun CONTROL
 

Yet the government does presume to take away my rights to alter my consciousness as it sees fit. Whats worse is that it is social fashionable amoung most employers to discriminate against those of us that feel that what we are doing is our business and not someone else's. In NY a possesion ticket is 50-100 dollars for small amounts and is only a violation, the same as traffic tickets. Yet we don't screen for speeders (and when you think about it which is more dangerous) in the hiring process.

Truthfully, I'm fairly ambivelent about guns, fun toys maybe, essential in the back woods sure, but cure of a social ill? That argument doesn't make sense to me. Ya'll can keep your guns, just let me smoke my pot in peace.